Political and Constitutional Reform CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by Unlock Democracy

About Us

1. Unlock Democracy is the UK’s leading campaigning organisation for democracy, rights and freedoms. A grassroots movement, we are owned and run by our members. In particular, we campaign for fair, open and honest elections, a stronger Parliament and accountable government, and a written constitution. We want to bring power closer to the people and create a culture of informed political interest and responsibility. Unlock Democracy is a founding member of the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency, set up in 2007 with a number of organisations including Spinwatch, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace.

Executive Summary

2. Unlock Democracy welcomed the Government’s commitment to introduce a statutory register of lobbying interests. However, we are disappointed that proposals that took so long to produce are so limited in scope. The Public Administration Select Committee published its report recommending a register in 2008 and it was part of the Coalition Agreement and yet two years into the new Parliament we are only just at the green paper stage. We are particularly concerned that the lack of senior ministerial leadership on this issue had allowed the policy area to drift.

3. Unlock Democracy is not opposed to lobbying—indeed we lobby Parliament, the UK and devolved governments and local government. Lobbying is a part of the democratic process, the problem is when it’s done in secret so the public have no way of knowing who has been putting pressure on the Government to do what, or how much money they are spending on exerting that pressure.

4. The perception that companies and wealthy individuals can buy access and influence is undermining trust in our political system. There have been a number of scandals in recent months that have demonstrated this, from the Fox/Werrity affair,1 to the allegations of Bell Pottinger2 boasting about their access to the Prime Minister and McKinsey’s alleged influencing of the Health and Social Care Bill.3

5. We believe that the Government’s proposals are fundamentally flawed and will do little to promote transparency in lobbying. Our main concerns are that the definition of lobbying is too narrow and that the level of information recorded in the register would reveal little about the network of relationships between government and those who lobby.

6. Unlock Democracy wants an open and transparent lobbying system. We believe that the purpose of any lobbying register should be to capture lobbying activity rather than individual lobbyists. This means that both in-house and agency lobbyists should be covered by the register and that the register must include information not just on who the lobbyist’s client is, but also who is being lobbied, the policy area that is being lobbied and the amount of money that is being spent on lobbying. This does not have to be an arduous or overly bureaucratic process. Unlock Democracy has completed a mock registration form for the first quarter of 2012 to demonstrate how this could be achieved without putting an undue burden on the organisations concerned.

7. The proposed register of lobbying interests only covers lobbying activity at Westminster. While we think this is the necessary and appropriate place for a new regulatory framework to be developed, in the longer term we believe it would be appropriate for this system to be introduced for the devolved Parliaments and local government as well.

Committee’s Questions

Does the Government’s consultation paper represent a balanced approach to the idea of a statutory register?

8. No, it doesn’t. The proposals essentially extend the current voluntary regulation system to all third party lobbyists and puts the register on a statutory footing—they would do little to open up the industry and allow voters to scrutinse who is seeking to influence the Government.

9. The Prime Minister has said that

“we want to be the most open and transparent government in the world.”4

We welcome his commitment to this agenda and believe that the register of lobbyists is an fundamental aspect of this policy programme. For the register to be a meaningful step forward in transparency, it is essential that the focus is on capturing lobbying activity rather than individuals who lobby.

10. The fundamental flaws in the Government’s proposals stem from both how they define lobbying and lobbyists. The Government takes the view that only those lobbying on behalf of third party clients should be required to register. Unlock Democracy strongly disagrees with this approach. We believe it is unfair to multi-client lobbyists as it excludes the in-house lobbyists who account for a significant amount of lobbying activity in the UK.

11. Unlock Democracy lobbies Parliament and the Government—employing four staff who spend part or the majority of their time on lobbying activities. We estimate that our expenditure on lobbying in the first quarter of 2012 is approximately £21,600. Under the Government’s proposals we would not be required to register because we employ our own lobbyists in-house. However, if we paid for a self-employed lobbyist or an agency to do this work for us they would have to register. Unlock Democracy takes the view that what matters is capturing the lobbying activity, not whether the person doing the lobbying is working for one or many clients.

12. Mark Harper MP has argued that in-house lobbyists do not need to be included in the register because,

“When an in-house representative from a company comes to see me, the public knows what’s happening and that is transparent. If someone from an agency comes to see me, no-one knows who they’re advocating for—and that’s not transparent”.5

13. We do not believe that is the case. Unlock Democracy is currently lobbying the Cabinet Office on a number of different policy areas. If we were to have a meeting with Mark Harper it could be about individual elector registration, House of Lords reform, lobbying, boundary changes or other democratic reform issues that we may wish the Government to pursue. This would not be apparent just from the fact that he was meeting us.

14. Lobbying is an important part of a democratic culture, it allows different views and experiences to be heard, but we need to be open and honest about who lobbies and what they are lobbying for. This means acknowledging that it is not just large agencies who lobby, but also charities, voluntary sector organisations, trade bodies, companies, trade unions, media organisations and universities.

15. We are aware that there may be concern about including smaller businesses or charities in a new regulatory system. We are sympathetic to the desire to reduce bureaucracy for organisations and Unlock Democracy supports ALT’s recommendation that small businesses and charities should be exempt from registering. ALT has provisionally defined small as organisations that do not employ the equivalent of one full time public affairs person or spend £6,000 or less per quarter on lobbying activity.6 We are working with bodies such as the National Council for Voluntary Organisations to ensure that the right balance is reached between capturing lobbying activity and light touch regulation.

16. However, we believe that a comprehensive lobbying register does not have to be an undue burden. We have completed a draft filing that includes the level of information we would want to be captured on a register to demonstrate how we think this could work in practice. It took us approximately 20 minutes to complete and as some of the information is unlikely to change each quarter we would expect this to be less for subsequent filings.

17. The assumption in the consultation paper seems to be that in-house lobbyists do not need to be covered because they account for very little of the lobbying activity in the UK. This is a mistaken assumption and we believe that the figures quoted in the White Paper grossly underestimate the number of in-house lobbyists working in the UK. The consultation cites figures suggesting that there are between 320 and 450 in-house lobbyists employed in the UK,7 which is fewer than half the number of those working for agencies. However, in a paper published in 2009 the lobbying industry cites academic evidence suggesting that there are four in-house lobbyists for every agency lobbyists.8

18. Also, the figures in the impact assessment state that there are 100 in-house lobbyists working for companies which again we think is an underestimate. We know for example, that Tesco alone employs six in-house lobbyists and they are certainly not the only company to do so. It is standard practice on the telecommunications industry to use in-house lobbyists for example.9 The industry’s 2009 figures also put the total number of dedicated lobbyists working in the UK at between 3,500 and 4,000.10 This is 2,000–2,500 more than the figure in the Cabinet Office’s Evidence Base. We believe the Government’s current plans would exclude an estimated 2,500–3,000 lobbyists, working in organisations from Tesco to Barclays, CBI to Greenpeace.

19. Unlock Democracy believes that it is essential that in-house lobbyists, including those working for trade associations, charities, voluntary sector organisations, trade unions and companies are covered. Although we take this position on a matter of principle and not simply on the basis of the numbers of people employed, we are concerned that the Government’s evidence base is poor and may have led them in an erroneous policy direction. Law firms, management consultants and accountancy firms also lobby on behalf of clients and must be included in a transparency register to create a level playing field with dedicated lobbying agencies. However, lobbying of the Government by a member of the public, which is unpaid, or lobbying of an MP by a constituent, should be exempt.

20. We also note that at present it is only proposed the register of lobbyists should apply to Westminster. Whilst we think it is necessary and appropriate that the new regulatory regime should begin at Westminster, in the longer term we believe that similar schemes should also be brought in for the devolved Parliaments and local government.

Which lobbying contacts are of greatest legitimate public interest? Does the consultation paper envisage the capture of appropriate information about these contacts, as opposed to other kinds of contact?

21. The other fundamental flaw in the Government’s proposals is the lobbying activity that they seek to capture is very limited and would reveal very little new information. Indeed, the Government’s proposals would essentially mean that the current system of voluntary registration would continue but all lobbying agencies would be required to join. The only additional information the proposed statutory register would provide is that agencies would have to publish their client lists. Whilst this information should certainly be in the public domain, it does not go nearly far enough to bring transparency to lobbying.

22. Unlock Democracy believes that for a lobbying register to be effective it must include who is lobbying whom, what they are lobbying for and crucially how much money is being spent on lobbying. The specific information that we think should be included in the register and that we have included on our draft filing is:

The organisation lobbying.

The name(s) of individual lobbyist(s).

Information on any public office held by the lobbyist in the past five years (the so-called “revolving-door”).

The public body being lobbied.

The name of public official with whom contact has been made (senior civil servant and above).

A summary of what is being lobbied on, whether legislation, regulation, policy or government contract.

The amount of money spent on lobbying (a good faith estimate).

23. This goes considerably further than the Government’s proposals but is the level of information necessary to bring transparency to lobbying. The ultimate purpose of a lobbyists’ register is to increase government accountability, by putting lobbyists’ dealings with officials in the public domain. Therefore, it must include information on who is being lobbied in government and what issues they are being lobbied on. The amount of money that is being spent on lobbying is particularly important. This would bring out into the open the different amounts being spent by businesses and civil society organisations for example. After all, lobbying is an investment for organisations; US figures suggest that for every dollar spent on lobbying, a company can expect a $100 return, while in the UK it is estimated that for a lobbyist knowing a Cabinet minister is worth £113,000 a year.11

How should the Government deal in policy and practice with how it might be lobbied on the issue of a statutory register of lobbyists?

24. Unlock Democracy is gravely concerned about the way the policy development process has been handled. While it is entirely appropriate for civil servants to meet with members of the lobbying industry to discuss the proposals, there has been a distinct lack of balance in the views sought.

25. The Alliance for Lobbying Transparency, of which Unlock Democracy is a member, requested a meeting with the Minister responsible for lobbying policy, Mark Harper MP. This was refused on the basis that it would be inappropriate before the consultation had been published. Specifically, he stated that:

“I do not think at this stage in the process a meeting would be appropriate, but I look forward to receiving your contribution to our consultation, which we hope to launch in the coming months… I think it is helpful to be clear that the Government intends to consult fully on proposals for a statutory register of lobbyists. We will take note of the voluntary register run by UKPAC, and no doubt UKPAC will wish to respond to the consultation paper and provide the benefit of their experience in this area.”

26. This letter was received in October 2010, yet it is clear that at this stage senior civil servants were meeting with UKPAC to discuss their approach to the proposed register. Minutes from a UKPAC board meeting in September 2010 reveal that:

“A letter from Mark Harper to the Chairman had been received acknowledging receipt of the UKPAC’s progress and plans to date. He agreed his officials meet monthly with the [UKPAC] Secretary.”12

27. UKPAC also had regular meetings with senior civil servants working on developing the lobbying register proposals. UKPAC describes its discussions with Eirian Walsh Atkins as “productive and positive”. According to minutes from one UKPAC meeting:

“Ms Walsh Atkins outlined the timetable for the introduction of legislation for a statutory register… She made clear that the Cabinet Office would be working closely with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to draft the consultation and legislative framework, including discussions on the possible sanctions for non-compliance. Ms Walsh Atkins and the Secretary will have close contact to discuss progress, meeting at least once a month.”13

28. It should also be noted that the Cabinet Office initially refused to disclose information on its dealings with lobbyists. In December 2011, the Information Commissioner ruled in favour of disclosure, some 17 months after the request was first submitted. In the year and a half that the Cabinet Office fought to block the release of information, it broke ICO guidance on the time it took to process the request (its internal review process took five months instead of 20 working days), it was threatened with contempt of court proceedings by the ICO (for not providing the Commissioner with the information necessary to make a judgement) and was found in breach of the Act (for withdrawing its original exemptions and applying a second set of late exemptions without informing the requestor).

29. Whilst we do not think it was necessarily inappropriate for ministers or civil servants to meet with UKPAC or other representatives of the lobbying industry, we are concerned that there does not seem to have been any attempt to balance views sought. We believe that this has led directly to the imbalance in the proposals that have been brought forward by the Government.

30. As the Committee may be aware, it was revealed in the Sunday Times the civil servant in charge of the lobbying proposals resigned after it was revealed that she had tweeted that she wished Unlock Democracy would “die”.14 The comment was a response to us asking our members to write to their MPs about the delay in publishing the proposals for a lobbying register. As an organisation we have not pursued any disciplinary action over this incident and, following the receipt of an apology from Ms Walsh Atkins, consider the matter closed.

31. We are not concerned about an inappropriate remark on Twitter but we are worried about the close links between lobbyists and civil servants and the fact that the proposed register would do nothing to shed light on those relationships.

32. These close relationships with lobbyists are not restricted to one policy area. There were reports in the media recently of companies paying up to £1,800 to attend networking events hosted by the Chemistry Club at which senior government officials frequently attend.15 In this case there is absolutely no suggestion that civil servants and ministers were paid to attend these events, but there is equally no denying that companies would not pay such exorbitant amounts if they didn’t feel they were getting something out of it. There is no reason for such events to exist: if government officials feel they need to network with industry they are perfectly capable of setting up such events themselves and thus avoid being open to the accusation that people are having to pay for access or that civil servants are sourcing out their judgement to private firms out to make a fast buck.

33. This neatly demonstrates both the need for a register of lobbying interests and why the Government’s conceptualisation of lobbying is flawed.

Do you have any comments on how any proposals emerging from the consultation should be implemented?

34. Unlock Democracy believes it is essential that any lobbying register is administered by an independent body and not the industry itself as is currently the case. We would be happy for it to be added to the remit of an existing body, such as the Electoral Commission, which already maintains registers on donations and loans to political parties. This would help to minimise both the costs and bureaucracy associated with the new regulatory regime, whilst at the same time reassuring the public that the register signals a new era of independence, openness and transparency in lobbying in the UK.

Are there any important questions that are not asked?

35. This consultation focuses on those who lobby government. In terms of the openness and transparency agenda, one issue that this Committee and Parliament may wish to consider is the criteria for issuing parliamentary passes. Those who have a parliamentary pass have privileged access to the parliamentary estate and those who work in it, including MPs. UKPAC have already highlighted this as an area of lobbying activity that needs to scrutinized—they don’t allow people who use parliamentary passes to be registered. This is to minimise the “revolving door” phenomenon whereby former MPs or parliamentary staff use passes for lobbying purposes.

36. The lobbying register that operates in the European Parliament includes provisions whereby if a lobbyist breaches the terms of the register then their pass is removed. This is considered a considerable sanction. While it would not have been appropriate for the Government consultation to explore this issue, as the Committee is already examining these proposals, it may be something you wish to consider.

February 2012